Can I have some crowd-sourcing help here about gun-safety in the home?

I’m in a very polite discussion with someone about gun safety. I’ve managed to use data to convince this person that America is not home to exceptional gun rampages, that they occur in other countries, and that those denied guns go on rampages with other things. I’ve also shown that gun control laws in England have seen increased violent crime, while gun control laws in Australia did nothing to affect gun crime statistics, which were dropping anyway. The next line of discussion is whether guns in the home are so dangerous to family members that they have no merit for self-defense purposes.

The obvious argument is that you cannot insulate yourself entirely from risk. If you banish guns, you get crime; you have guns, you get self-defense with an increased risk to family. But what I’m wondering about is the credibility of the data she politely offered. Do any of you know whether the following is correct and, if it’s not, do you know what accurate information is about gun-safety in the home. (And I wonder, off hand, whether it’s greater or less than pool safety, or falling out of window safety, or eating poison safety, or getting beaten to death safety, etc.).

This, from a “firearms tutorial” out of Utah:

The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

and this, from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.

Guns aren’t really the issue, it’s the culture, the training. Ask your friend if he thinks someone from the ghetto sporting two smokes in his mouth and tattoos over his eye is competent for the job he does…
Maybe he’s a hacker extraordinaire, but that doesn’t mean much when corporate culture requires you to not to do whatever you want to do.

Most accidents come from lack of training. The adults play around with guns, then their crazy kid or kid that’s not trained in firearms, goes and plays around with the gun and loads it. Also specific guns like shotguns, which Democrats like Biden like to tout for “home defense” can be loaded with solid slugs that can go through about 50 normal house walls. Same for high caliber FMJ chambered pistols. Like most things in life, competent people make everyone around them competent, wannabes put themselves and everyone around them at greater risk due to incompetence or inexperience.

TO be honest, it doesn’t matter what the statistics are. Stupid and incompetent families will get themselves shot to hell, whether by others or by each other. Even with an extremely high rate of accidental discharge, the competent family will never see it. They aren’t statistically locked in. Consider insurance rates for traffic accidents.

Too many Californian zombies think the gun is a demonic wand or demonic sword. It has a will and power of its own. Personally, I don’t really need handguns to issue lethal force. A tool is merely a labor saving device. It’s not like you are prevented from traveling 5 miles because you lack a car. It just takes longer and more effort. In the case of H2H or anti crime initiatives, longer=riskier=more dead bodies.

Stats are another numbers game to control weak minds. Californians though… they seem to like statistics.

Jose

It appears the “Utah study” numbers are only based on events when shots were fired (626 shootings), versus events where a gun was simply present, perhaps displayed, but no one was injured.

Cases where someone was shot would be a small percentage of the total number of hostile encounters, most of which could be concluded without bloodshed when the victim demonstrated the ability to defend himself.

This incident would not be included in the study of “626 shootings”.
————-
The research of Dr. Gary Kleck demonstrated that guns were more often used to prevent crime than to commit it, and of course a prevented crime doesn’t often show up in “studies”.
Some of Kleck’s findings from the above link:

-For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
-Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
-A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.

As someone has pointed out, if you can make the definitions you can win the argument, every single time.

I’m not going to go find the source referenced and figure out what they did, but what they’re telling us is ridiculous on its face. Think about it, for EACH use of a firearm for self-defense, there were: four unintentional shootings, (AND) seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides

I’m sorry, but that is just inherently unbelievable. Whoever fiddled with the definitions went too far. I recommend John Lott: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401418040&sr=1-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime He defines his terms in plain sight, he references his sources throughout, and he shows definitively that weapons for self defense do NOT make reasonable people less safe. Whatever your (misled or misleading) Facebook friend has to say about it.

Oh, Yeah….can anyone make sense of the following, and communicate it to me:

“Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.”

Jose

“Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.”

Armed self defense usually doesn’t escalate to the point of “murder”.

“Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009” How many were murdered with firearms? This misleading statement implies they were all killed with firearms, but the FBI numbers are quite different.

according to the FBI, the number of murders only indicates investigations, “as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body” . Which perhaps resulted in a finding of self defense.

“only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.” It is unlikely the numbers include those who were never charged.
—————————–
And the FBI doesn’t regard murder and justifiable homicide as the same thing.Justifiable homicide—Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:

The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are * tabulated separately from murder* and nonnegligent manslaughter.

Jose

having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home.

It has been discussed here before, but Japanese men are the world champs at suicide, and they manage quite well without guns, which they are not permitted to own.

A person has a 1.9 times greater chance of being dying by firearm use in a home with a gun than a person in a home without fire arms. But that’s only a chance, a probability, and that doesn’t usually hold up to actual observation of which there seem to be no studies comparing home gunshot deaths with non-home gunshot deaths. All firearms deaths are lumped together with street gang wars, liqueur store robberies, and random shootings by crazy liberals.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

From just these three sources, it seems to me that one must really want to die by firearm in the home as opposed to the Top 5 which can happen to anyone anytime. The CDC also shows that more people die from hernias 1,832 than accident gunshots.

Danny Lemieux

If I recall my stats from Gary Kleck and John Lott correctly, it was estimated from their review of county-by-county police records that there occur between 750,000 and 2.5 million instances per year whereby guns are used to successfully avoid a crime being committed. That compares to 12,000 – 15,000 murders per year, 2/3rds of which are committed with firearms.

Another point that needs to be made is that the U.S. murder rate is highly localized by neighborhood and race. Suburban (mostly white) neighborhoods and cultures have lower murder rates than most European countries. Several people have already pointed out that mass murders in the U.S. appear to be committed largely by one group in particular: the screwed-up offspring of Liberal Democrat – Progressives.

And, on that note, it continues to amaze that the screwed-up, narcissistic, entitled son of a Liberal Democrat Hollywood elite can go on a murderous drive-by rampage where six people are killed, but should the same occur on a hot summer night in Chicago…(yawn…crickets).

cerumendoc

As alluded to above, what is cherry picked by gun controllers is what piles up on the emergency room door. What doesn’t show up is what doesn’t happen. That is what Kleck tried to determine; and even he has a very wide range of such incidents because we simple don’t know what isn’t reported. Brandishing a gun or perhaps firing a warning shot. Criminals aren’t stupid, they leave quickly, to find an easier target.
But, we can make some accurate inferences about the utility of guns. Lott demonstrates the presence of concealed carry, even by only one or two percent of the population creates a halo effect of lesser crime.
We know, in mass shootings, that the presence of a armed civilian will cut short the completed murders to two to four victims; whereas that lack of countervailing force will allow the total dead victims to swell to something like 12 to 16.
We know that if we were to eliminate the crime statistics of Washington DC, Chicago, New Orleans and Detroit, the overall crime rate with regards to murder would fall to the fourth lowest on the planet. So, on the subject of cherry picking, we have a very specific demographic committing gun crimes.
Then there’s the 100 million murdered in the twentieth century by the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot (speaking of crime). The commonality being an armed state unleashed on an unarmed civilian populace. Simply never happened here.
All in all, we can demonstrate by inference that gun owners tend to be a relatively responsible demographic which would tend to take some of the statistics you cited irrelevant. There a lot in medicine, to go into my profession, that questions the utility of statistics. Penicillin was one example–it worked, children who uniformly died to meningitis lived. You didn’t have to do a double blinded study to determine that. I think that one needs to not let the opposition define the battle space of trading statical bon mots.

“Anyone is welcome to break into my home, but the only way they are leaving is in a body bag.”

Caped Crusader

Ymarsakar #2:

Brother, you nailed it with this comment. The problem, as always, is the lazy irresponsible future preset and future libtards who know nothing about the lethal objects they own, have not sought proper care and instruction, and do not plan to do so. I grew up with loaded readily accessible firearms in the home as did nearly everyone I knew, and walked to school many days with a member of the rifle team carrying their rifle over there shoulder. No hysteria or anyone calling for a swat team, a common site even in a city. Never a firearm accident except with kids “playing” with them when their lazy parents were not around, never anyone from my culture. If a kid is trained from the start in the awesome destructive power of a firearm and sees the results they know how to behave, and do so. When youngsters, as soon as age appropriate, are included in shooting outings, learn to shoot, and care for firearms they will not “play” with them. And of course your children should be instructed that if any of their friends “show” them a gun owned by their parents they are to “haul ass” and leave the premises with all due haste immediately and report the incident, and never allowed to return. Of course when a child is very small added precautions must be taken. Despite all precautions it is impossible to protect civilization from the acts of the insane and/or irresponsible, try as we will!

Ymarsakar: I’ve been curious about something for years. When you are walking down the street, do you blend in until a predator appears or do you stand out in the first instance as someone quite obviously not to be messed with? I guess I’m asking if you look like mild-mannered Clark Kent, or if you’re always walking around like the Incredible Hulk.

I look like a harmless, keyboard warrior, nerd that is not very tall or intimidating.

Although given recent experiences with dogs, they can see through that disguise when they get close enough. When I move my muscles, the dogs get a little bit of a jump, like I’m trying to attack them or something. On two separate occasions, I’ve used voice commands alone to make feral packs of dogs leave my territory. The first was merely an experiment, to see if I could communicate intent by standing far away and exerting will through my voice and sound into my surroundings. On the second occasion, my voice command became so loud that it began reverberating across and back from the street houses, so that I was hearing reverbs seconds after I had finished talking. Then people in my home came out as if they heard me. This is a nice technique I’ll probably use if the streets are crowded with too many EBT flash rioters for me to get away from. If it works on feral packs of dogs, then surely it’ll work on them.

Also my neighbors know what I do when exercising. Which is good, let everyone who is trying to scout out my house for a little torture and robbery, know that there are easier targets. But on the street against strangers, unless you have a hierarchy or “reputation”, standing out does little good. The more you stand out, the more people want to challenge you because of X, Y, Z or this other thing. Mendokusai (pain in the A). If you or I had a reputation as being in prison or killing a bunch of thugs every few weeks, they would leave us alone. So those without reputations or other obvious defenses, such as a bulging side holster or external hip holster, would find it easier just to evade detection and notice. Intent, cannot be seen from afar, but body language can be read and voice tones can be heard. But it’s all range limited to one extent or another. There’s no way to see a martial artist’s training by the way they walk. A martial artist is just as balanced or unbalanced as they walk as anyone else. If they weren’t, then it would be obvious what technique they were using, because it ain’t walking. Body language consists more than the “walk” though. It’s not the feet, it’s the other stuff, context clues, range, sequencing, and timing.

I once had to pass through this narrow gap between two vehicles, and there were hoodies and black tough girls on top at the gap, so I had to push my self through them since I hated wasting time walking around. The girl group behind me then started getting into that emotional train of “hey, watcha think ya doing” as they called after my back. I then turned around, while walking backwards, and showed my open palm. This visibly calmed them down, and that was already getting out of talking distance. No words spoken, merely body language that communicated the intent of “peace”.

With voice and body signals, I can communicate the opposite intent as well… “War”.
When SGT Dave was still here, I relayed a story via this medium of when I was running around the neighborhood, tired and looking at my feet (weak signals), and some car pulled up on the street to a stop light and did a Holler Call out, which I assumed was towards me. I immediately went into “eagle tracking mode” and had targeted the car for approach and assessment. I was prepared to evade or shatter any arms coming out of the car with guns, so I was balancing over reaction against war drive bys and reaction against social disrespect. They got real quiet as I walked up to them, but since they stuck out a hand palm outside their window for a fist bump or high five, I accepted that peace offering. Though I was already adrenalized and needed something to take it out, so I hit their hand pretty hard.

My lethal force range is only at touch range without tool upgrades. Thus it is similar to assassination ranges. I need people to get close. If I was armed with a firearm, then I might change my aura to project it further outwards. Although you can merely do this by flashing your HOLSTER and people will get the “drift”. Don’t need no super duper body language signal.

A lot of Democrats grow up like Book here, surrounded by freaks, idiots, and cowards that are afraid of guns. Well, when you’re surrounded by freaks and extremists that are afraid of sex, won’t educate you on sex, and treat it like blood sacrifice, obviously one may come to feel terror on the topic of doing sex. Guns are not an exclusion on this matter.

Democrats know they wouldn’t trust Biden or their family with guns. And they are RIGHT. We wouldn’t trust em either. SO they think all humans, themselves included, are like that. Democrat projection, as usual.

JKB

As mentioned above, they don’t consider the crimes prevented by the availability of a firearm, to use if the person confronted turns out to be more aggressive than smart. But having a firearm, in the same manner police have firearms, enables a miscreant to be stared down. The presence of the firearm never revealed. Unlike the police, however, the private firearms carrier does not have the authority to demand compliance (past ending the threat) and therefore are far more likely to have a miscreant move on. Police also deter crime in this manner but also have a duty to apprehend which can escalate an encounter.

2. There are about 310 million people in the United States.Thus, the Briggs-Tabarrok effect says that depriving 3,100,000 people of their guns (a 1 percentage-point decrease in the gun ownership rate) would save about 200-360 lives (.5*40,000=200; .9*40,000=360). In ratio form, the Briggs-Tabarrok effect says that to prevent a single suicide, 8,600 to 15,500 people – the vast majority of whom are not suicidal – must lose their guns.

This effect should be something considered by gun owners but doesn’t impact non-gun owners. The gun grabbers’ concern might be considered more sincere if they didn’t follow it up with a threat or hope of the gun owners’ death.

Suicidal people have difficulties exerting enough will to kill themselves. Thus many attempts end in failure or second thoughts, later. So their best bet of killing themselves is by using an external lethal force, gun, or a natural force that kills (gravity, water drowning, electricity).

Thank you so much for these extremely helpful replies, everyone. What I ended up doing was drawing down the principles you’re talking about, which are primarily about risks — and, just as importantly, the impossibility of entirely eliminating risk. I therefore wrote a friendly, long essay about accepting that risk is inevitable and about the risks we can guard against.

I noted that homes are dangerous and that sensible people guard against dangers (pool drownings, carbon monoxide poisoning, fire hazards, poisons, guns, etc.), while sensible people don’t. In the latter type of home, the gun is no greater a risk than anything else that can happen.

I talked about real risks: government tyrannies, predators, and societal breakdown because of a natural disaster. All of these risks can be warded off somewhat by private gun ownership.

I wrapped up with this link: http://www.gunfacts.info/

Caped Crusader

Well, he quit too soon. Today just remembered a catchy tune from the 1941 musical and later movie, Best Foot Forward. This would have been a great fight song for Shenseki as it is a perfect fight. Should have got this to Obama earlier. As long Shenseki was around the story would never die but now it will be old news and attempted to be interred. Just substitute Shenseki for Winsocki and enjoy!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76ABAUm0JU&feature=kp

I have Best Foot Forward sitting on my TiVo right now. Since I’m the only one in the family will watch old movies, though, I have to find a time when no one else wants to watch TV before I get to watch it myself. I saw it about 15 years ago, and am looking forward to catching up with it again.

I think netflix allows downloads of old movies. And if not, there are plenty of other sources.

ANd how you live in Marin and only have one TV…. won’t even remark on that.

Caped Crusader

ENJOY! I am a TCM fanatic; about the only ones I do enjoy. Modern movies are too loud, crass, and rely too much on computer generated effects and leave nothing to imagination and to stimulate the imagination.
Tomorrow morning on TCM is Doctor in the House from 1954, of which I have fond memories seeing at the local art movie house specializing in foreign movies, especially English, French, and Italian films of the day. Went with a few medical school classmates, and we thought it hilarious. Saw the original Diabolique with Simone Signoret. much more suspenseful than today’s overdone movies.

Incidentally, we were the beneficiaries of the British medical “brain drain” of that era, having the most fabulous professor of pathology, who along with with his associates decided to “Get the hell out of Dodge” when the British Health Service was begun. One of the greatest teachers I ever experienced, and a God given asset to those who can enthusiastically impart knowledge to others and make it thrilling to learn; too few possess it, and something that can not be taught or learned if you do not posses it. I can still hear today after one of his great lectures one of the residents who came with him saying as we entered the lab, “AK (not OK) chaps let’s get cracking!

Saw a lot of Swedish films that all seemed too morose for me to appreciate.

A lot of people utilizing guns don’t have all range training or CQC tactical training. So they don’t normally shoot their handguns from the hip, it’s too inaccurate for them. So they focus on long or medium distance shooting, to get as many rounds on center of mass as possible, servicing as many targets as possible, before they get into arms reach. But here’s what some of us do when opponents surround us and have somehow crossed the 21 feet rule while still functioning. If a person grabs unto your gun or gun hand, merely fall backwards on your back/butt, using gravity and your mass to straighten your arm out and shoot the guy that’s being pulled into you. There’s no need to drop your gun and get a backup gun or knife. There’s no need to wrestle for the GUN with a younger and superior stronger opponent. Just use gravity, straighten out the sight, and pull the trigger. Tactical exercises for SF forces do utilize certain gyrations of the back and neck, to ensure complete flexibility while carrying tactical backpacks, ammo, webbing, and firearms. This has the added feature of clearing the firing line so your buddies back there can open full auto on the rest of the enemies. Or if the enemies surround you with AKs, this gives you a convenient human shield on top of you, as you shoot them all while prone.

Dogs are funny. Most born wild dogs will avoid humans, too weird and scary. Smells wrong. Domesticated dogs that are abandoned (escaped from PETA execution cells) will team up with other packs. They usually don’t get along with domestically neurotic dogs on a leash (the pull runners).

But look, the feral pack is scared of gunshots! They are like Democrats.

Body language is the most accurate when it communicates a person’s actual intent to do something, starting right now. Just as you figured out with your Marin police sting actors, people who “pretend” to be doing something they won’t do, give certain inconsistent signs out. This is interpreted easily as insincerity, or in the eyes of a predator “weakness” and “cowardice”.

Thus when I prepare myself to tactically terminate my targets, anyone that can see me will notice the difference. It’s not something that can be hidden, unless you got a cloak on or the ability to misdirect people’s attention (which stage magicians do). Thus when someone approaches me, and I start “analyzing” their vulnerabilities and body language, that action itself transfers over to people who are paying attention. They may not realize what I’m doing exactly, but they know I’m doing something and that I’m different from their usual human. The only certain way not to do that, is to not do the actions associated to it. Meaning, pretend you’re a spy and observer/tail someone without them noticing that you are doing so. That is pro level. Pro level at disguise is not the same as pro level at tactical solutions.

The Japanese call this saki or “killing intent” that can be picked up like some EMP wave by alert human senses. A little bit mystical, but there are some solid Western science to back it up.

When a human makes a decision to kill another for survival or whatever, there is a noticeable difference in physiology. Heart rates, sweat, eye dilation, muscle activation timing, all of it will transfer across to a person that sees you. Animals are much sharper at this than humans. A lot of humans get a “bad vibe” from someone, ignore it, and then gets surprised when they are robbed or raped. Well, the thing about human instinct, when you haven’t trained it, is that it can recognize potential threats, but gives you no reason for it.

A person who is broadcasting or emitting an aggressive aura, isn’t normally the person that’s the most dangerous. An aggressive aura merely means they are the big ape man, they are using social status levels to exert influence. Killers don’t use social status, don’t care. They just want to end you, turn you into a corpse. They do not have conversations with corpses. They do not enjoy lording it over corpses (except the crazies like Dalmer). They do not envy a corpse’s social status, or wealth, or youth, or sexual virility. A corpse is a thing, like dog shat.

So if you were wondering about this, Book, yes, there is a significant difference between a killer’s aura and body language vs the aggressive big man that likes to punch people out. And I like to talk on and on about this because I couldn’t research this without first coming up with terms to describe it. One, after all, can’t look up a subject on the internet if you don’t even know the name of it. Unfortunately there is no “name” or “term” for this, other than what people who love violence or are very competent at it, have created to communicate in this little “community” of communities.

BombthePeasants

Am I too late to add to this thread? I appeal to one glaring statistic that no one seems to realize: Somehow, for centuries in America, children have been born and reared in homes with guns, and somehow we have not “accidented” ourselves into extinction. I keep every firearm in the home in the safe, separated from their respective ammunition, save for the one that I carry every day, which NEVER leaves the holster. When I get home, the gun AND holster goes to a high shelf where my children cannot reach it. As for the kids, they are trained in the 4 rules: Stop-Don’t touch-Walk away-Tell an adult. Lastly, if you let them see the gun, unloaded and made safe of course, and handle it, you de-mystify it, and “defang the snake”. But of course, the anti-gunners don’t want people who treat guns as tools, they want to pervert the culture and make all guns declared “VERBOTEN”…

One thing I’m not sure the statistic of “people with guns in the home are X times more likely to be shot than to fire the gun in self-defense…
It seems the more dangerous the local environment is, the more likely someone living in it is to have a gun. The relation would go the other way as well — people are more likely to have guns in the home when that home is in a dangerous neighborhood.
I bet there’s a positive correlation between living in a dangerous neighborhood and being shot.

I bet you’re right about your proposed correlation, Karl. What I’d like to see is a study showing whether or not the neighborhood gets safer if residents are legally allowed to have guns in their home to use for self-defense.

Ron19

If you consider the county or state to be the neighborhood, John Lott has done that in More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics).

The book is heavy reading with tables and statistics, but the answer is that yes, it is safer, for both the gun-owners and their neighbors.

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: